Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
If we're talking about independent contemporary historical sources confirming the existence of Jesus, they are practically nil. We start with the gospels, written decades after Jesus' death. Prior to the gospels, I am not aware of any historical references to Jesus (and you'd think that if he was causing dead people to walk around, rising from the dead, and being executed as an enemy of the state, there would be at least some mention, wouldn't you?). Everything else essentially begins with the assumption that the gospels are true, and refers to them as the authority for claiming their own veracity.
For this reason -- lack of credible evidence that he existed -- that many people today claim that such a man never actually existed.
However, I personally think he did exist. Not because of direct evidence, but more simple logic and circumstantial evidence. We have multiple different writers all referring to the same man, and referring to similar events. The fact that many of their accounts actually contradict each other is a strong indication that they did not collaborate with each other. It simply seems rather highly unlikely to me that four different men, without collaborating or communicating with each other, would write four accounts of the same man, claiming that he was real.
My own opinion? Jesus did exist. He was pretty much a nobody, he didn't do much to gain attention at all, he was just one of many self-proclaimed prophets at the time. His fame and influence on our world aren't because of anything he did, but rather due to the growth of a mythology that grew up around him after he died, fed by his followers (who gained status and fame for being associated with such a great man). When things reached the point that the stories about him were actually starting to reap fruit, several of his followers decided to write stories about him to cement the mythology.
To me, this provides a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for the way the gospels are written. All share the common goal of promoting the idea of Jesus as the Messiah (and thus, since he was dead, granting power and influence to his followers); all share common stories that had developed over time as the mythology grew; and all share significant discrepancies as each had heard (or created) different versions of that mythology.
For this reason -- lack of credible evidence that he existed -- that many people today claim that such a man never actually existed.
However, I personally think he did exist. Not because of direct evidence, but more simple logic and circumstantial evidence. We have multiple different writers all referring to the same man, and referring to similar events. The fact that many of their accounts actually contradict each other is a strong indication that they did not collaborate with each other. It simply seems rather highly unlikely to me that four different men, without collaborating or communicating with each other, would write four accounts of the same man, claiming that he was real.
My own opinion? Jesus did exist. He was pretty much a nobody, he didn't do much to gain attention at all, he was just one of many self-proclaimed prophets at the time. His fame and influence on our world aren't because of anything he did, but rather due to the growth of a mythology that grew up around him after he died, fed by his followers (who gained status and fame for being associated with such a great man). When things reached the point that the stories about him were actually starting to reap fruit, several of his followers decided to write stories about him to cement the mythology.
To me, this provides a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for the way the gospels are written. All share the common goal of promoting the idea of Jesus as the Messiah (and thus, since he was dead, granting power and influence to his followers); all share common stories that had developed over time as the mythology grew; and all share significant discrepancies as each had heard (or created) different versions of that mythology.
